Blufford Hayes, Jr. v. Jeanne Woodford

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge THOMAS.

In this death penalty habeas case, we must decide whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present potentially mitigating evidence at the trial’s penalty phase. We also consider numerous other claims, including whether the prosecution’s failure to reveal evidence that could have been used to impeach a witness had a material effect on the jury’s verdict.

I

On the afternoon of January 1, 1980, Blufford Hayes Jr.’s sister, Barbara Lord, *1061 returned to her room at the Rice Motel in Stockton, California and found the resident hotel manager, Vinod “Pete” Patel, lying dead on the floor in front of the bathroom, his hands and feet bound by coat hanger wire.

When Lord had left Room 15 that morning, Hayes, who was staying with her, was the only person in it; he was wearing a dark blue three-piece suit and a light blue, long-sleeved shirt. Later, at 9:30 a.m., Bearla Mae Wyatt, another motel resident, went to the motel office to request fresh towels. In the office, she saw Hayes complaining to Patel about a problem with the bathroom sink in Room 15. 1 Patel did not understand…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The prosecution’s knowing presentation of false testimony, its failure to disclose exculpatory material to the defendant, and penalty phase ineffective assistance of defense counsel require reversal. Thus, I must respectfully dissent from Sections III, IV and V of the majority opinion and the judgment. In all other respects, I concur.

I

One of the bedrock principles of our democracy, “implicit in any concept of ordered liberty,” is that the government may not use false evidence to obtain a criminal conviction. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). Deliberate deception of a judge and jury is “inconsistent with the rudimen *1089 tary demands of justice.” Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). Thus, “a conviction obtained though use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Napue, 360 U.S. at 269 . 1 “Indeed, if it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is ‘virtually automatic.’” United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 456 (2d…

301 F.3d 1054 Blufford HAYES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-99030. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued June 6, 2002. Submitted June 14, 2002. Filed August 26, 2002. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED David A. Senior, McBreen & Senior, Los Angeles, California, argued the cause for the petitioner-appellant; Kathleen T. Saenz, McBreen & Senior, Los Angeles, CA, was on the briefs. Mathew Chan, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California, argued the cause for the respondent-appellee; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Arnold O. Overoye, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-92-00603-GGH P. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Opinion by…